If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

What I can't understand is: "Do not change ANYTHING because I've used to it."
Yes! GS has many problems and made many stupid errors (and I've to tweak it after each upgrade). But it's much better than "stop moving! I'm here."

And exactly that is the initial problem that started all this fuss.
The Gnome developers were not moving, they have replaced.
If they would have said: "Look, Gnome 2 is not what we want to do anymore, anyone who is willing can take it over, we go and make something different, under a different name." all the fuss and the flamewars wouldn't have started in the first place. We just would have another DE, living peacefully together with Gnome 2 (or at this time maybe even a Gnome 3 that actually resembles Gnome 2) and the other ones (as peacefully as they can, so only the usual flamewars between fanboys).

But they did not do that: They took the most widespread DE out there, declared it as obsolete and replaced it with something totally different, but under the same name. That was their main mistake. If you get something with a higher version number you expect an improved version of the old thing, not something totally different. The Porsche 911 was a car that got many different versions with many improvements over the time, but the basic principles are the same. If I buy such a Porsche 911 I expect to get one and not a Porsche Boxster, Cayman or Cayenne.

The KDE people also made many changes with KDE 4, but the basic principles were the same and the discussions back in the time were mostly about the number of bugs in KDE 4 and not so often about changes in the user interface.

And most of my problems can be solved by its powerful extensions (I don't know your cases so I can't make suggestions, sorry)

IMO, the best part of GS is its extension. I can overpass all GS's shortages just because of it.

In my most important desktop software, the WM (or DE, if you use one), I personally don't want to rely on extensions made by third parties, especially not in cases like Gnome were extensions are known to break with upgrades (and were the developers don't care about such breakages).
I prefer to have the functionality I need in-built to my WM, with sane developers that don't remove functionality without asking the users and then point to third parties to get the functionality back. I could without any problems (and with increase and not removal of functionality) upgrade from i3 4.2 to 4.3 to 4.4, which is the current version. Nothing broke, all works as intended and I got new features and replacements for old features, without having the old ones removed.

And exactly that is the initial problem that started all this fuss.
The Gnome developers were not moving, they have replaced.
If they would have said: "Look, Gnome 2 is not what we want to do anymore, anyone who is willing can take it over, we go and make something different, under a different name." all the fuss and the flamewars wouldn't have started in the first place. We just would have another DE, living peacefully together with Gnome 2 (or at this time maybe even a Gnome 3 that actually resembles Gnome 2) and the other ones (as peacefully as they can, so only the usual flamewars between fanboys).

But they did not do that: They took the most widespread DE out there, declared it as obsolete and replaced it with something totally different, but under the same name. That was their main mistake. If you get something with a higher version number you expect an improved version of the old thing, not something totally different. The Porsche 911 was a car that got many different versions with many improvements over the time, but the basic principles are the same. If I buy such a Porsche 911 I expect to get one and not a Porsche Boxster, Cayman or Cayenne.

The KDE people also made many changes with KDE 4, but the basic principles were the same and the discussions back in the time were mostly about the number of bugs in KDE 4 and not so often about changes in the user interface.

Agree. Maybe they should use "Goblin" instead of "Gnome 3" from the beginning

Originally Posted by Vim_User

In my most important desktop software, the WM (or DE, if you use one), I personally don't want to rely on extensions made by third parties, especially not in cases like Gnome were extensions are known to break with upgrades (and were the developers don't care about such breakages).
I prefer to have the functionality I need in-built to my WM, with sane developers that don't remove functionality without asking the users and then point to third parties to get the functionality back. I could without any problems (and with increase and not removal of functionality) upgrade from i3 4.2 to 4.3 to 4.4, which is the current version. Nothing broke, all works as intended and I got new features and replacements for old features, without having the old ones removed.

My experience with Firefox made me falling love with extensions.
Firefox once made me very uncomfortable because they change its default UI to a Chrome-like one.
I don't like this and I can configure the UI back with customization and several extensions.
Customizations and Extensions make me feeling I can hold the control of my UI.

On the other side, sane developers may but won't always help because I am sure I can't always be the majority

And exactly that is the initial problem that started all this fuss.
The Gnome developers were not moving, they have replaced.
If they would have said: "Look, Gnome 2 is not what we want to do anymore, anyone who is willing can take it over, we go and make something different, under a different name." all the fuss and the flamewars wouldn't have started in the first place. We just would have another DE, living peacefully together with Gnome 2 (or at this time maybe even a Gnome 3 that actually resembles Gnome 2) and the other ones (as peacefully as they can, so only the usual flamewars between fanboys).

But they did not do that: They took the most widespread DE out there, declared it as obsolete and replaced it with something totally different, but under the same name.

I can see why some people got annoyed when things change. I think everyone can think of some example of this in their lives.
The thing is though: GNOME3 has been out for about two years. And before that it was developed in the open.
So, why people are still upset now, two-three years after work on GNOME3 began I can't really understand. You've all had plenty of time to either suck it up and stick with the program, or find something else.
I am not sure who thought the third option "Exclaim surprise and hostility towards the developers" would be constructive.

And exactly that is the initial problem that started all this fuss.
The Gnome developers were not moving, they have replaced.
If they would have said: "Look, Gnome 2 is not what we want to do anymore, anyone who is willing can take it over, we go and make something different, under a different name." all the fuss and the flamewars wouldn't have started in the first place. We just would have another DE, living peacefully together with Gnome 2 (or at this time maybe even a Gnome 3 that actually resembles Gnome 2) and the other ones (as peacefully as they can, so only the usual flamewars between fanboys).

But they did not do that: They took the most widespread DE out there, declared it as obsolete and replaced it with something totally different, but under the same name.
....

I can't understand this reasoning. At all.
Replacing implies taking something away, i.e. that the old item is no longer available and forcibly so.

That's not what happened though: what happened is that most Gnome and GTK developers discussed and designed - in public and for years, I may add - and chose to change what they are offering for free to the public. All of Gnome 2 and GTK2 code is still available, they just chose to move on and not work on that any more.
What is different in your hypothetical case? Who exactly would have taken over Gnome 2 for maintenance and development, in face of all the changes going on in the Linux infrastructure and needed hardware support? Who would have ported it all to gsettings and GTK3? Because I certainly don't see all that overflowing interest right now, and nobody kept anyone from doing so: Mate might have stricken the hearts of several Gnome 2 users, but is clearly a niche project and I have doubts on its sustainability.

If most of the knowledgeable people stopped maintaining Gnome 2 and moved en masse to Sparklynewname DE and GTK3+, with only a handful of new maintainers to keep the old code base in shape, I very much doubt that any distro worth its salt would have chosen - after an initial transition - to keep distributing a barely maintained Gnome over the much more actively developed Sparklynewname. Same situation as today, different names: it's not about the containers, it's about the content and the real people working on it.

All that said ( a rose by any other name ... ) I actually think that the Gnome devs had all the rights in the world to call their new project Gnome 3. Their work, their prerogative.

I can see why some people got annoyed when things change. I think everyone can think of some example of this in their lives.
The thing is though: GNOME3 has been out for about two years. And before that it was developed in the open.
So, why people are still upset now, two-three years after work on GNOME3 began I can't really understand. You've all had plenty of time to either suck it up and stick with the program, or find something else.
I am not sure who thought the third option "Exclaim surprise and hostility towards the developers" would be constructive.

You forget that these are people who would have been against such changes from the start and that people having used and preferred gnome for years are allowed to express concern about the continued decline of gnome.
Usage has halved, people are not happy with the change. People want to be able to use the DE they used and loved for years, I dont see how you cannot grasp this?
It shows a level of selfishness.
I think very few people would argue that GS MUST BE REMOVED COMPLETELY, but then again for the same people the dropping of fallback mode was the last straw.

Why not give people the empowerment of choice? I Really cannot grasp why anyone such as yourself would argue so passionately against this idea.

But the crux of the matter is people have had plenty of time to find something else, gnome usage having halved I think many of them have done if you hadnt noticed

Are anyone's needs fully met by default Gnome, anymore? Judging by the number of people complaining about the direction they've taken, I'd say not many.

People whinged about GNOME 2 and KDE (SC) 4 as well. History tends to repeat itself. I have seen a number of people defending GNOME 3 and GNOME Shell, so I guess it does work fine for them. Perhaps not as many people have their needs filled as with GNOME 2, but there's no way to know if this is just a noisy minority or not. In any case, to say that it is meets nobody's requirements would be an unfounded assertion.

You forget that these are people who would have been against such changes from the start and that people having used and preferred gnome for years are allowed to express concern about the continued decline of gnome.

Expressing concern is one thing. Hating is quite another. Look at the "concern" in this and countless other GNOME threads and see if the feedback is constructive or not.

Usage has halved, people are not happy with the change.

I still have not seen any data that supports that kind of numbers. Usage numbers have probably dropped, I will give you that. But without any numbers it's quite hard to tell.

People want to be able to use the DE they used and loved for years, I dont see how you cannot grasp this?
It shows a level of selfishness.

Anecdote time!
I was a happy Ubuntu-user for about 7 years. I really loved it and tried to get other people to use it.
Then they started going in their own direction, and I did not like that direction. So now I am a happy Fedora user instead.
I would very much have appreciated if Ubuntu would have continued in line with my own vision of the Linux desktop, but they didn't.
But it's their project, and their vision, not mine.
Personally I think it is more selfish when people think that GNOME-developers should develop the desktop other people want, and not the desktop they want themselves.

I think very few people would argue that GS MUST BE REMOVED COMPLETELY, but then again for the same people the dropping of fallback mode was the last straw.

Why not give people the empowerment of choice? I Really cannot grasp why anyone such as yourself would argue so passionately against this idea.

Uhm? Not sure what you mean. I am kind of passionate about GS because I think it is awesome, and it makes me annoyed when some people bash it without substantial reasons.
I had nothing against Fallback mode, and nothing against the new GNOME classic that replaces it. I also have nothing against KDE/XFCE/... I just happen to not use them.
I am not advocating that my work flow is the one and only and that GS is perfect for everyone.
I am just arguing that after three years maybe it is time to suck it up, stop hating, and just use whatever you want to use, and let me and other people use what we want to use.

I still have not seen any data that supports that kind of numbers. Usage numbers have probably dropped, I will give you that. But without any numbers it's quite hard to tell.

There are numbers, you just refuse to acknowledge them. They show gnome polling at roughly 25% of install base. Gnome used to exceed kde and now it's doing roughly half of kde, excepting on fedora.

Originally Posted by kigurai

I am not advocating that my work flow is the one and only and that GS is perfect for everyone.
I am just arguing that after three years maybe it is time to suck it up, stop hating, and just use whatever you want to use, and let me and other people use what we want to use.

I don't really care what you use, the discussion is over what should be the default desktop on fedora, and in a larger sense what the default gnome desktop should have been. That discussion will continue to happen while people are installing their distro and thinking, WTF Is this?